32-WP-11773-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11773 OF 2026 Suresh Rajaram Mhatre & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus Suresh Rajaram Gupta & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Raju Suryawanshi, for the Petitioners. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026 Oral Order :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 18th August, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mira- Bhayandar, whereby Police aid was directed to be given for the execution of possession warrant in Regular Darkhast No.01/2026 (arising out of old Regular Darkhast No.348/2012), and another order dated 18th August, 2026 whereby an application preferred by the judgment debtor to appoint a Court Commissioner to visit the building in which the suit flat is situated and submit a report to the Court, came to be rejected. 3. Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that there is a serious issue about the identity of the SAINATH, PA 1/3 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.10.03 12:24:13 +0530 32-WP-11773-2026.DOC flat in respect of which the decree is passed in favour of the decree holder. Attention of the Court was invited to an application (Exh.33) preferred in Regular Darkhast No.348/2012 whereby the decree holder sought to amend the description of the suit property furnished in clause 10 of the Darkhast application so as to correct the Flat No.48-B to 404-B in Rushabh Plaza building instead of Amit Varsha building. It was submitted that, the Court had only permitted the decree holder to bring the legal representatives on record by an order dated 26th October, 2018, and express permission for amendment to correct the description of the suit property was not granted. 4. It is pertinent to note, a petition, being WP(st)/22663/2019, assailing the said order was filed and, on 17th September, 2025, the said petition came to be disposed as withdrawn. Thus, it is now not open for the petitioners to assail the said order on the ground that, the Executing Court has not ascribed reasons and had passed a one line order. 5. In the impugned order dated 18th August, 2026 passed on the application (Exh.46) preferred by the petitioners – judgment debtors, in Paragraph No.13, the learned Judge has recorded that, the execution proceeding was amended to describe the suit property as Flat No.404. SAINATH, PA 2/3 32-WP-11773-2026.DOC 6. In these circumstances, at this stage, since the decree for delivery of possession of the subject flat has been awaiting execution for 14 years, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. 7. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. 8. It is clarified that, in case the petitioners succeed in the pending proceeding, the petitioners can be appropriately restituted, and the observations in this order will not be construed against the petitioners while deciding the said proceeding on its own merits and in accordance with law. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 3/3